Slashdot videos: Now with more Slashdot!

View

Discuss

Share

We've improved Slashdot's video section; now you can view our video interviews, product close-ups and site visits with all the usual Slashdot options to comment, share, etc. No more walled garden! It's a work in progress -- we hope you'll check it out (Learn more about the recent updates).

OSX may have been certified as Unix, but it has been diverging from its ancestor so much that it no longer feels Unix-like in the least.

Some examples:

- no/dev (bye-bye Unix philosophy cornerstone "everything is a file");- unusable "locate" that doesn't find all the stuff it should (because Apple wants you to use Spotlight, the command line is bad, you silly!);- much of the userland isn't aware of the HFS+ filesystem extensions (have fun cp'ing files, discovering months later that - oops! - the stuff had a resource fork and is now unusable -- verrry dependable!);- case insensitive filesystem by default, you could switch to case sensitive for compatibility with any other Unix in the universe (have fun reformatting and reinstalling) but - alas! - important application software won't support it (photoshop & others);- no cron! If you want to get it to do things periodically, you either gotta write freaking XML for launchd, or run Vixie Cron in addition to launchd. No thanks!

If OSX is Unix, it's the worst Unix I've ever seen. No serious command line nerd could ever like it (OTOH, it's perfect for know-nothings who like to click on pretty pictures). Using it is a totally different (as in "worse") experience than using any BSD (or Linux!), so spare me the old "OSX is BSD" hearsay!

It's not that. I've updated the db (and I let update it periodically, via launchd) but it still won't find everything (not even regular user-owned stuff).

man CpMac

Yeah, I had come across that one. Then again, you first have to know it exists. Apple won't warn you nor inform you. And when you investigate and find out, it's usually because the regular Unix tools have already wrought havoc.

It's a case-preserving filesystem by default. Because it's a Mac and needs backward-compa

As of Mac OS X 10.4, the cp command preserves metadata and resource forks of files on Extended HFS volumes, so it can be usedin place of CpMac. The/usr/bin/CpMac command will be deprecated in future versions of Mac OS X

Yeah, I had come across that one. Then again, you first have to know it exists. Apple won't warn you nor inform you. And when you investigate and find out, it's usually because the regular Unix tools have already wrought havoc.

All of the standard Unix tools for moving / copying files have supported resource forks for some time now. But it's really not a big deal because only Classic / Carbon MacOS apps make use of resource forks. Classic will not run on new hardware and Carbon was depreciated a while ago. If you are a Unix user, I can't imagine a situation where you would want a resource fork.

It's a case-preserving filesystem by default. Because it's a Mac and needs backward-compatibility.

Whatever. Have fun developing on a case-insensitive file system and not noticing case mismatches that will suddenly stop the show when you run your stuff on a proper Unix.

You have it wrong. The file system is not really case-insensitive as per the traditional sense. If you have a file named "SomeFile.

You have it wrong. The file system is not really case-insensitive as per the traditional sense. If you have a file named "SomeFile.pdf" and try to open "SomeFile.Pdf" it will fail. The case is sensitive just as with the other Unix based operating systems. Where it differs is that it will not allow you have files named "Readme" and "readme" in the same location.

> ls dir2README> mv dir1/readme dir2/> ls dir2readme

Bye-bye README! Because of this nonstandard behaviour, I once lost a bunch of files. Tha

- no/dev (bye-bye Unix philosophy cornerstone "everything is a file");- unusable "locate" that doesn't find all the stuff it should (because Apple wants you to use Spotlight, the command line is bad, you silly!);- much of the userland isn't aware of the HFS+ filesystem extensions (have fun cp'ing files, discovering months later that - oops! - the stuff had a resource fork and is now unusable -- verrry dependable!);- case insensitive filesystem by default, you could switch to case sensitive for compatibility with any other Unix in the universe (have fun reformatting and reinstalling) but - alas! - important application software won't support it (photoshop & others);- no cron! If you want to get it to do things periodically, you either gotta write freaking XML for launchd, or run Vixie Cron in addition to launchd. No thanks!

If OSX is Unix, it's the worst Unix I've ever seen. No serious command line nerd could ever like it (OTOH, it's perfect for know-nothings who like to click on pretty pictures). Using it is a totally different (as in "worse") experience than using any BSD (or Linux!), so spare me the old "OSX is BSD" hearsay!

So you noticed that/dev/ still exists. Well done. Although mounting is automatic (which I hardly see as being a bad feature and something unique to Mac OS X) there's no reason why you can't manually mount stuff as you wish. man mount.

On locate, log a bug if it's not working as intended. This is what techie people do. I'd opt for mdfind unless I have a script that *absolutely must* use locate. mdfind is fast and isn't reliant upon having an up-to-date locate database.

There seem to be some uninformed posters here, so here is the OS X relationship to BSD:The OS X/iOS kernel is based on Mach, which is a microkernel mashed together with a BSD kernel. It has a lot of BSD code in it and continues to share code with the other BSDs. It has features borrowed from BSD such as DTrace, PF firewall, file system support (including ZFS before it was removed), the networking subsystem, kqueue, jails, and others. While Mach is fundamentally different in some ways, to a POSIX binary it looks and feels just like any other BSD system.

The OS X userland is also based on BSD and was originally derived from FreeBSD. It uses the BSD libc and many of the command line tools are from the BSD world (from grep to ssh). It also includes some GNU tools, such as bash. Apple is actively working on replacing many of these, and they recently dropped GCC and GDB and replaced them with Clang and LLDB.

It has a lot of BSD code in it and continues to share code with the other BSDs.

Really? I was under the impression that Apple do not distribute any source code for Darwin on ARM. Please show me where I can obtain the XNU ARM kernel source that is used in iOS.

Why would you need that? The platform-specific part of the kernel is a fairly minor part of the overall code. There's a lot more code investment in the VM, the FS, the network stack, and other major kernel subsystems, which are all generic code and distributed to the public, than the specific implementations of low level locks, interrupts, and page table map managers. The fact that we can't build and run XNU on ARM doesn't mean that we can't share code with it.

One more crippling bombshell hit the already beleaguered *BSD community when IDC confirmed that *BSD market share has dropped yet again, now down to less than a fraction of 1 percent of all servers. Coming close on the heels of a recent Netcraft survey which plainly states that *BSD has lost more market share, this news serves to reinforce what we've known all along. *BSD is collapsing in complete disarray, as fittingly exemplified by failing dead last in the recent Sys Admin comprehensive networking test.

You don't need to be a Kreskin to predict *BSD's future. The hand writing is on the wall: *BSD faces a bleak future. In fact there won't be any future at all for *BSD because *BSD is dying. Things are looking very bad for *BSD. As many of us are already aware, *BSD continues to lose market share. Red ink flows like a river of blood.

FreeBSD is the most endangered of them all, having lost 93% of its core developers. The sudden and unpleasant departures of long time FreeBSD developers Jordan Hubbard and Mike Smith only serve to underscore the point more clearly. There can no longer be any doubt: FreeBSD is dying.

Let's keep to the facts and look at the numbers.

OpenBSD leader Theo states that there are 7000 users of OpenBSD. How many users of NetBSD are there? Let's see. The number of OpenBSD versus NetBSD posts on Usenet is roughly in ratio of 5 to 1. Therefore there are about 7000/5 = 1400 NetBSD users. BSD/OS posts on Usenet are about half of the volume of NetBSD posts. Therefore there are about 700 users of BSD/OS. A recent article put FreeBSD at about 80 percent of the *BSD market. Therefore there are (7000+1400+700)*4 = 36400 FreeBSD users. This is consistent with the number of FreeBSD Usenet posts.

Due to the troubles of Walnut Creek, abysmal sales and so on, FreeBSD went out of business and was taken over by BSDI who sell another troubled OS. Now BSDI is also dead, its corpse turned over to yet another charnel house.

All major surveys show that *BSD has steadily declined in market share. *BSD is very sick and its long term survival prospects are very dim. If *BSD is to survive at all it will be among OS dilettante dabblers. *BSD continues to decay. Nothing short of a cockeyed miracle could save *BSD from its fate at this point in time. For all practical purposes, *BSD is dead.

I wish FreeBSD added support - however minimal, disabling the power-hogging dedicated graphics card - for hybrid graphics. That would be pretty much enough for me to at least dual-boot FreeBSD on my laptop.

What I find funny is that BSD is finally, after 10 years of ATT/UNIX trademark fearing BS, starting to not only catch up but exceed in technical developments and market growth.I've used it as my main desktop for almost 15 years. Well, ok FreeBSD specifically. I run Linux, and a little windows too. All the servers are BSD.BSD has ZFS, which is the reason Linux has ZFS, because BTRFS is still vaporware.And because of the ultimate freedom of the BSD two/three clause license all other OS can use BSD code.But Linux is a zealous camp and insists on infecting people:( And now even Linux is stealing back clean-roomed BSD code that the BSD projects clean-roomed from GPL tools specifically to get away from GPL versions of same. How funny is that:)And now with CLANG/LLVM things are really moving.No, BSD is not dying, it's building very long term openness and business friendly models, much longer term and open visioned than Linux. BSD cares about these things. One way to see that is the FreeBSD foundation's donations page, the model is working.Linux is better than it was in the 90s and 2000s, it doesn't crash on me like it used to. They'll both still crash if you poke them in certain ways. But as a daily use, BSD hasn't ever exibited what I used to see with Linux.Oh, there is also PC-BSD for users, which is sort of like Ubuntu to Debian.I like not having to worry about KERNEL from Linux + GNU from third parties to make a whole OS... BSD projects provide the sum of those two IN HOUSE. You get the whole OS from one shop. So all that is left is the packages you want to install like X, Firefox, GIMP, whatever just like any other OS.Anyways, I'm just happy with FreeBSD (and OpenBSD and DragonflyBSD, don't really use NetBSD because they're more embedded).If you're a Linux user and haven't tried it, grab an ISO and run it in a VM. Don't freak because you might not have a sexy GUI installer with pointy clicky AJAX menus and stuff (that's coming), but take a look at the configuration mechanism after you're up and running, how you update and build the kernel and world... the overall BSD model of things.See if you like it maybe:)

Because of ZFS (and after being disappointed with the current state of ZFS on linux, it's still too early and performance is way behind other implementations) I put a version of BSD on an old 32 bit file server with 750GB IDE disks that were being wasted and hadn't been powered on for a while. Even that thing seemed fast - with a quick boot time and enough disks in the ZFS pool it suddenly seemed viable despite being in the rack with machines seven years newer. Of course having 4GB of memory helps a lot.

But Linux is a zealous camp and insists on infecting people:( And now even Linux is stealing back clean-roomed BSD code that the BSD projects clean-roomed from GPL tools specifically to get away from GPL versions of same. How funny is that:)

Yeah, I hate it when people release code under the license they want, and then someone comes along and takes it off them, and releases the code under a completely different license! Really rude. If only there were a license that the BSD project could use which would prevent such terrible behaviour...

Or to put it another way (with less snark)- if they don't like people changing the license their code is under, they shouldn't be releasing it under a BSD license. That's basically the point of that license...

About 8 months ago, I dived into trying FreeBSD on the desktop, after having been a Linux user since the mid-90's. I like it very much. In fact it has become my default desktop, but I'm reluctant to recommend it to others. Firstly, I don't know whether their hardware will be fully supported. And, even if it is, most people won't have the time or inclination to learn what's required to use it.

What I find funny is that BSD is finally, after 10 years of ATT/UNIX trademark fearing BS, starting to not only catch up but exceed in technical developments and market growth.

Proof?

I've used it as my main desktop for almost 15 years. Well, ok FreeBSD specifically. I run Linux, and a little windows too. All the servers are BSD.BSD has ZFS, which is the reason Linux has ZFS, because BTRFS is still vaporware.

Vaporware? I'm using BTRFS as we speak

I like not having to worry about KERNEL from Linux + GNU from third parties to make a whole OS... BSD projects provide the sum of those two IN HOUSE. You get the whole OS from one shop. So all that is left is the packages you want to install like X, Firefox, GIMP, whatever just like any other OS.

Your first point Is a matter of opinion, and I can do the same thing by using Debian, Slackware or Gentoo.

From TFA:
"Playstation 3 -- FreeBSD now officially supports the Playstation 3 game console. This might be a bit late, but the Playstation 3 has been useful for several number crunching applications due to its processor and its low price."

The PS3 hasn't had the OtherOS option for how long? I don't know of anyone that hasn't updated after that, obviously not the USAF.
I knew *BSD was behind the times, but come on now...

I read TFA. I was rather disappointed that in the list of BSD's accomplishments, no mention was made of IPv6, where FBSD was the pioneer. It was the first to have support from the KAME project, and later, in version 9, they even had the IPv6 only mode, which users could use if they wanted to test whether applications work w/ IPv6 w/o a fallback to IPv4. They would also have done well to have described PC-BSD's EasyPBI package manager, which even FBSD seems to have adapted, as well as the Linux jails in FBSD and PC-BSD.

On the OBSD side, they could have described their routing and firewall capabilities. Also, they could have, in the FBSD part, described m0n0wall and pFsense, and compared them w/ OpenBSD

On the NBSD side, I don't see NetBSD playing much of a role. If they are targeting embedded devices, they would do better to team up w/ Minix3.2, which, as a really small microkernel would be better suited for embedded applications, and focus on the things mentioned, whether it's file systems, networking, getting non-GNU utilities (like FBSD, they too ought to endorse and adapt LLVM/Clang) and Wayland. Since Minix 3.2 is under a BSD license and has adapted the NBSD conventions, it would be a good idea simply to merge them. I mean, does the NBSD kernel have anything special about it that Minix 3.2 doesn't deliver

The author did a poor job of listing most BSDs accomplishments and fails to mention many projects of interest in the community.

GhostBSD, pfSense, Monowall are all interesting projects and then there's my project MidnightBSD and MirBSD.

In general, I think there's interesting projects related to file systems, IPv6, compiler work, and virtualization happening in many of the BSDs. Some BSDs are going to GPLv3 binutils and GCC (DragonFly, NetBSD). Others are using LLVM+clang (FreeBSD, MidnightBSD) and then oth

On the package managers, on the Linux side, I've had yum/rpm throw up dependency conflicts all the time. I've had fewer problems w/ apt-get, so have nothing to say against them. In PC-BSD, they handle the dependency issue very well, which is why it's such a neat feat: they have the applications bring in their own dependency libraries w/ them, but also do a check to see whether the required dependencies are already there in the PC-BSD system. If they are, the dependencies are not redundantly installed. A

The article states "TrueCrypt, a disk encryption tool, though being Closed Source, gained a wide distribution among computers due to its ease of use and cross-platform compatibility." I think this is misleading as the source code is licensed under a custom license but it is open source (depending on what one means by open source). It's not a BSD or GPL license, but the code is open and one is allowed to modify it and distribute binaries and source of the modified version. It has to be renamed and there are